Health Service Executive -v- SB (Care Order - Homelessness & Addictions)

• Judge: Horgan P.
• Judgment Date: 05 March 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] IEDC 6
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Date: 05 March 2013
• Court: District Court (Ireland)

[2013] IEDC 6

AN CHUIRT DUICHE THE DISTRICT COURT

HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE

APPLICANT

-AND-

SB

RESPONDENT

CHILD CARE ACT, 1991— SECTION 18(1)

IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD

5 March 2013

1. This is an applicat ion for a Care Order under section 18(1) of t he Child Care Act, 1991 (herein after referred to as ‘t he 1991 Act’) in

respect of the Child who was born in August 2011 at 27 weeks gest ation with a v ery low birth weight.

2. The Child’s mother is legally represented in the proceedings by solicitor and c ounsel.

3. The Child’s father is not legally represented by his own choic e in the proce edings and I am satisfied that t he notic e of applicat ion

was duly served on t he father.

4. The se parate interests of the child are represented in the proc eedings by the Guardian ad Litem (“GAL”) appointed by the Court on

23 November 2011.

5. The GAL indicated t o the Court his support for a Care Order in respect of the Child and recommended such Order for the full

duration until the child reaches the age of 18 years. The GAL approves the HSE’s Care Plan in respect of the Child provided to Court.

6. The HSE brought this applicat ion on the basis t hat t he Child’s health, development, and welfare is likely to be avoidably impaired or

neglected if the c hild is returned at this time to t he joint care of the parents or to the care of either of t hem due to the parents’

chaotic lifestyle, t he existenc e of domestic v iolence betwee n the parents, the volat ile nature of the parent s’ personal relationship,

the mutual lack of c apacity to parent t he child, and the mother’s alcohol misuse and histrionic personality disorder.

7. I am satisfied that the [District given] has jurisdict ion to hear this applicat ion.

History

8. The Mot her has three older c hildren in another jurisdiction who were all placed in t he care of their respect ive grandparents under a

Supervision Requirement Order by the Courts in that jurisdiction and t he children were also placed on t he Child Protect ion Register in

this jurisdiction.

9. The HSE bec ame involved in 2009 when the mother left her c ountry of habitual residence with her youngest in contravent ion of the

Court Order made in that jurisdict ion. The c hild came into the Care of t he HSE by way o f an Emergency Care Order on 16 July 2009

until, by Order of Finlay Geoghegan J in the High Court, this child was ret urned to the c are of Social Services in the country of the

child’s habitual residence. The mother remained in this jurisdiction residing in a variety of homeless person’s acc ommodations.

10. The Community Welfare Offic er notified the HSE of c oncerns regarding the mother’s ability to c are for her premature child in light

of her lifestyle and homelessness. The Medical Soc ial Worker in the maternity hospital also note d conc erns for the saf ety of the c hild

who was in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in the Hospital and note d conc erns about the fract ious relationship between mother and

father even in the maternity hospital.

11. The Soc ial Work Department had already procured a psyc hological assessment of the mother between September 2009 and

October 2009 in the c ontext of their earlier engagement with her. This assessment by t he clinical psyc hologist co ncluded that the

mother had serious personality diffic ulties and a history of c hronic difficulty in sustaining a stable lifestyle f or her and her children. She

also had previous ill-defined mental health diffic ulties. The Ps ychological assess ment was that the mother presented as meeting the

DSM IV clinical criteria for histrionic personality disorder. Additionally, this psychological assessment found t hat t he mother was likely

to c ontinue to hav e difficulty sust aining a stable lifestyle a nd it was rec ommended that she be referred for further psychiat ric

assessment and evaluation.

12. On 30 September 2012, an Emergency Child Protect ion Conference was held and it was det ermined that the risk to the child was

so high if discharged from the maternity hospital to t he care of the parents, that an Interim Care order should be applied for. The

mother subsequently sought hospital treat ment for a fract ured jaw which she c laimed to have suffered following an alterc ation and

though she denied that the fa ther had perpetuate d this injury, she agreed that her relationship with the father w as consist ently

violent.

13. Due to conc erns about t he mother’s ability to ca re for the c hild due to her alcohol abuse, c haotic lifestyle, and domestic

upheaval, the HSE co ncluded that the mother did not have t he capac ity t o care for a very sic k infant at t hat t ime and consequently

sought an Interim Care Order.

14. The c hild was admitted to t he care of the HSE on t he granting of an Interim Care Order on 6 Oct ober 2011, which has been

extended by the Court on 14 occ asions since that dat e until the date of hea ring. Two earlier dates were fixed for t he hearing of this

case, but these dates w ere vacat ed on consent t o fac ilitate the mother engaging in services t o gain tract ion on her alcohol addiction

and resolve her homelessness so that a full Care Order could be avoided.

15. On the day of hearing, it was indicate d to t he Court that the mother did not propose t o cont est t he application of t he HSE for a

Care Order for the child but opposed the making of a Care Order until the child reached the age of 18 years. The mother indicated her

consent to t he making of a Care Order for a period of one y ear.